Directive de Crédit à la Consommation à été passé ´par le Conseil des Ministres. Même si la Grêce, les Pays Bas, le Luxembourg et la Belgique ont rejettés le texte, ou se sont abstinés, la France comme les autres grands pays membres a voté en faveur de cette directive en dépit qu'elle aie été vivement critiqués dans le milieu des consommateurs. Même si la dernière version de cette proposition CDD a respecté la critique d'ECRC et a freinée les plans de libéralisation totale pour le crédit sur Internet, d'introduire des frais generaux pour le remboursement anticipé ainsi que d'introduire une boite standardisé pour l'information aux consommateurs, les grands défauts du texte sont restés: abolition des régles protectrices nationales par le principe de l'harmonisation totale ainsi qu'une liberté quasi abolue de manipulation du TAEG. Nous documentons la réaction francophone du ministre Luxembourgeois sur son vote ainsi que le communiqué de presse de la semaine dernière issu par le Conseil avec nos commentaires encore en Anglais. COMMUNIQUE DE PRESSE LUXEMBOURGOIS Le ministre de l’Economie et du Commerce extérieur Jeannot Krecké a participé le 21 mai 2007 au Conseil Compétitivité à Bruxelles. A cette occasion, le Luxembourg n’a pas pu se rallier à l’adoption, à la majorité qualifiée, de la directive sur le crédit aux consommateurs. En effet, au fil de la négociation, la qualité de ce texte a été en constante baisse au point qu’il a été vidé de son efficacité et de sa plus value : « Nous avons manqué une occasion de remplir les objectifs annoncés initialement d’assurer une harmonisation à haut niveau de la protection des consommateurs et de créer un marché intérieur en ce domaine », a estimé le ministre de l’ Economie et du Commerce extérieur. La Belgique, les Pays-Bas et la Grèce n’ont pas non plus donné leur voix à ce texte qui est à présent envoyé au Parlement européen. Par la suite, le Ministre a profité de cette réunion pour sensibiliser ses collègues, ainsi que la commissaire aux consommateurs, Meglena Kuneva, sur un dossier qui préoccupe beaucoup le gouvernement luxembourgeois, à savoir la proposition de règlement sur le droit applicable dans les relations commerciales entre les entreprises et les consommateurs, appelée « Rome I », qui risque de nuire gravement tant aux entreprises qu’aux consommateurs luxembourgeois. En obligeant les entreprises à adopter leurs contrats à 27 droits différents nationaux et à supporter des coûts de mise en conformité très élevés, la proposition rend le commerce transfrontalier beaucoup plus difficile, en particulier pour nos PME. « Le système proposé va entraver de manière très concrète, et quotidiennement, la capacité de nos entreprises à se développer et à offrir leurs biens et services au-delà des frontières » a expliqué le ministre. Du côté des consommateurs, les inconvénients sont également très important, surtout pour un petit marché comme le marché luxembourgeois : « Quelle entreprise prendra en charge les coûts de mise en conformité en contrepartie de l’accès à un marché de taille réduite ?». La proposition va ainsi considérablement aggraver un phénomène que le consommateur luxembourgeois connaît bien, à savoir celui de l’accès à l’offre lorsque telle entreprise ne livre pas au Luxembourg ou que tel produit n’est pas disponible pour les résidents luxembourgeois. Une dizaine d’Etats membres ont soutenu le Luxembourg et partagé les préoccupations du ministre Jeannot Krecké. La Commission européenne a indiqué vouloir tenir compte dans la suite de la procédure des préoccupations exprimées et rechercher un équilibre entre les intérêts des entreprises et ceux des consommateurs. Finalement, les ministres de l’économie ont discuté de l’avenir de la politique industrielle européenne. Les discussions ont porté en particulier sur l’industrie automobile, la façon de stimuler l’innovation et de réduire la consommation en carburants des voitures. Jeannot Krecké a assuré la Commission européenne de son soutien absolu pour les propositions avancées. Le ministre a toutefois interpellé le commissaire et vice-président Günther Verheugen : « Il faut que nous soyons capables de tenir le rythme ! ». En effet, pour rester crédible il faut que l’Union européenne se donne les moyens pour réaliser son plan d’action ambitieux qui vise à rendre les véhicules plus sûrs et moins polluants. -------------- INTRODUCTION After 12 years of active involvement in the development of a new Consumer Credit Directive that could have coped with the rising problems of Overindebtedness and Predatory Lending Practices we have now got a disappointing result. The bad news is that it has passed with maximum harmonisation which hits all those who believe that Europe has to be developed in democratic discussions on the national level and not behind closed doors by bureaucrats in Brussels. The good news is that the Council has been less deaf to the quests of ECRC than Parliament and Commission and softened its impact on market liberalisation especially on the Continent. We publish the press release of the Commission with some preliminary comments. As soon as the full text of the Directive will be available we will continue our analysis and discussions which now are transferred to the national level where deputies will see what has happened to them in Brussels when they have to function as pure administrators of such rulings. This is perhaps a second chance to raise public consciousness on neo-liberal believes (it was the Council on Competition and not on Law and Social Affairs that decided this Directive) in Brussels and issues of responsible credit on the national level. PRESS RELEASE OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL The COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION in its press release from yesterday 21 May 2007 (9739/07 (Presse 112)) announced: CREDIT AGREEMENTS FOR CONSUMERS In public deliberation, the Council reached, by qualified majority (The Dutch and Greek delegations voted against and the Belgian and Luxembourg delegations abstained), a political agreement on the Commission's modified proposal for a directive on credit agreements for consumers (13193/07). The Council will adopt its common position at one of its forthcoming meetings after finalisation of the text and forward it to the European Parliament for a second reading in the framework of the codecision procedure. The revised directive aims at harmonising certain aspects o the laws, regulations and administrative procedures of the Member States concerning agreements covering credit for consumers. . The existing Consumer Credit Directive (87/102/EEC) is based on minimum harmonisation. Since its adoption, Member States have adopted measures exceeding the Directive’s provisions by differing degrees according to needs at national level. These differences in national legislation are considered as obstacles to the internal market. Consequently, in September 2002 the Commission proposed a Directive with a view to achieving full harmonisation. In the light of the European Parliament’s first-reading opinion of April 2004, the Commission presented a modified proposal first in October 2004 which did not contain a global text and then in October 2005. The Council agreed on a compromise package put forward by the Presidency that safeguards the added value of this legislative text for the internal market and consumer protection. Negotiations within the Council have been focussed in the following five main areas: 1) standard information for advertising, 2) pre-contractual information and contractual information to be included in credit agreements, 3) right of withdrawal, 4) early repayment of the credit and the creditor’s right to compensation and 5) the calculation of the annual percentage rate of charge (APR). The key features of the Council's agreement are: PRE-CONTRACTUAL AND CONTRACTUAL INFORMATION One of the key concerns of the draft Directive is that consumers are able to make, on the basis of pre-contractual and contractual information, an informed decision regarding the conclusion of a credit agreement. The compromise solution lies in improved structuring of the pre-contractual and contractual information. As regards pre-contractual information, it should be provided on a standard form in all EU Member States. This standardisation would make it easier for consumers to compare different offers. RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL As a general principle, the consumer will have a period of fourteen calendar days to withdraw from the credit agreement without giving any reason. The text further specifies the conditions for using this right. The Council has introduced a new provision in order to clarify the relationship of this right to other Directives. EARLY REPAYMENT Directive 87/102/EEC1 makes provision for a right to early repayment, but not for the right of compensation to the creditor in such an event. The Commission included the right of compensation to the creditor in case of early repayment in its proposal. The Council's compromise text grants creditors a limited right to compensation for early repayment of the credit (0.5 % or 1 % of the amount of credit repaid early). This compensation should, however, apply only for fixed interest rate credits and, where the reference interest rate is lower at the time of the early repayment than at the time of conclusion of the credit agreement. The reference interest rate is now defined in the compromise text as the interest rate that the European Central Bank or the central banks of the Member States apply to their most recent main refinancing operation. Furthermore, Member States will have the right to provide that the compensation for the early repayment can be claimed by the creditor only on the condition that the amount of repayment within 12 months exceeds a threshold defined by Member States. When fixing the threshold, which should not be higher than EUR 10,000 Member States will take into account, for instance, the average amount of consumer credits in their market. INDICATION OF THE ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE OF CHARGE IN RESPECT OF OVERDRAFTS In relation to overdrafts, a large number of delegations considered that the annual percentage rate of charge (APR) constitutes a significant tool for measuring the burden facing the consumer. In Article 9 (contractual information) the creditors are now given the opportunity either of indicating the borrowing rate and the charges or of indicating the annual percentage rate of charge, or of indicating both. Articles 4 (advertising information) and 6 (pre- contractual information) require that both the borrowing rate plus charges and the annual percentage rate of charge (on the basis of the assumption that the duration of the overdraft is 7 days and 3 months respectively) are indicated. INFORMATION TO THE COMMISSION ABOUT NATIONAL MEASURES In order to enhance the transparency and information to consumers and credit providers, a new article has been inserted. It provides for an obligation on the Member States to inform the Commission about national measures taken in case of making use of regulatory choices provided for in the draft Directive. The Commission would make such an information public. FIRST COMMENTS BY IFF SECOND READING IN THE PARLIAMENT? (1) It is rather questionable whether this is truly only a “second reading” where the Parliament has nearly no rights left. In fact the first reading concerned a totally different Directive and happened in another Parliament before the European elections. It also affected national parliaments who dealt with the first Draft and were thus equally kicked out of the process of regulation. This new Directive has far reaching implications for thousands of national laws but has been solely designed in the Commission and the Council. If not the Parliament who at least in its majority seems to be content with this second reading the European Court should have a say on this kind of procedure. But more important these rules have to be implemented into national legislation within the next two years. Then national politicians will have to understand what the implications of such new procedures are for making people more interested in politics as well as even more power to Brussels. MAXIMUM HARMONISATION (2) “Maximum Harmonisation” This new “Brussels Control Principle” amends the “home country control principle” so much discussed in the Service Directive. In fact this will be the first Consumer Protection Directive that directly abolishes national consumer protection law. While its predecessors concerned transborder or Internet affairs this directive forbids countries to for example fight against usurious credit contracts which hide up to 50% of the fees in separate insurance products or using artificial “leasing agreements” or chain credit to circumvent consumer protection laws. In the light of Art. 153 of the Treaty this has to be considered by the European Court of Justice. Such opinion is shared in the European Parliament and we are looking forward to the parties who are willing to clarify whether social Europe is now administered by competition policies of still by national democratic decisions. RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL (3) The right of withdrawal is modelled according to the German system where it has proved to be rather ineffective. Its main flaws are the short period and the obligation to pay interest for the elapsed time even if the credit is not used productively. EARLY REPAYMENT (4) A very interesting new element. It obviously deteriorates the position of consumers by introducing an early repayment indemnisation. It is not true as the Commissioner told the press that it now gives also a right to early repayment within the first 9 month. This right has always existed, only Germany did not allow it. But anyhow the indemnisation is now regulated with a ceiling as well as with regard to a defined reference rate. This is a big progress because it will have its impact on variable rate credit because the reference rate is now regulated. It will also have enormous impact on the skyrocking early repayment fees in mortgage loans which in many countries are under the same rules as consumer credit. In addition the fee does not apply to such credit where the initiative for its termination comes from the creditor and not from the borrower. So consumer advocates can probably use this new rule on a national level to develop more consumer protection. ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE OF CHARGE: THE "TRUE" PRICE? (5) Praised as the key element of price compoarison for consumer credit until 2000 the APR has now lost any significance in consumer credit. The Commission opted for the neo-liberal model that the truth of the APR should be dependent on the kind of contract offered by the supplier side. As no supplier will ever openly make bye-products “obligatory” in the contract such cost will never be included unless national courts will have enough from such cynical legislation where according to another misleading statement of the Commissioner “the creditor will have an obligation to tell the consumer whether the insurance is obligatory”. Such obligation does not exist because the rules have just not be changed at all. ID: 39753 Auteur(s): UR Date de parution: 22/05/07     URL(s): Declaration de Presse

World Partner       EU-Partner

Created: 22/05/07. Last Changes: 12/06/07.
Information concerning property and copy right of the content will be given by the Institut For Financial Services (IFF) on demand. A lack of explicit information on this web site does not imply any right for free usage of any content.